msrao at MTU.EDU <msrao at MTU.EDU> wrote:
>>That is exactly my point. So, we have to necessarily be careful
about
>>using the word vedAnta. We wouldn't claim the moon is made of green
>>cheese just because the moon is sublated in the ultimate sense,
would
>>we? Without using the intellect vedAntaviGYana is also not possible,
>>shravaNa, manana necessarily entail the use of intellect. That
however
>>is not "intellectual understanding" of vedAnta. There is no such
>thing.
>> >Rama
>>Though realisation is beyond the realms of intellect, I feel for
people
>who are new to the path, there is a need for intellectual
understanding,
>atleast in the beginning.
It seems I haven't got my point across. I'll say it one last time. I
was NOT talking about self-realization when I said vedAnta cannot be
"intellectually understood" (intellectual understanding as used common
parlance). Please read the mail of mine which you quoted again.
shravaNa, manana (and nididhyAsana too if you accept sha.nkaras
definition instead of sureshvaras) ENTAILS the use of the intellect.
However this is NOT "intellectual understanding" of vedAnta. There is
no such thing.
Distinctions of "intellectual understanding" and "practice" is mainly
a western concept. In pretty much any Indian darshana such a
distinction is absent.
I am making this point only because it brings out the necessity of
qualifications for embarking on vedAntic study. vedAnta is not a 3
credit course which can be "intellectually understood." :->
Rama